The Mueller Report thread

[fredtoast]

(03-26-2019, 11:34 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Sure all they did was say hi in passing at the airport. 

As I said; it's amusing to watch.

Not as amusing as watching people lose their shit over a meeting at an airport.

Bill Clinton could have called Lynch anytime he wanted to without anyone knowing.  But the right wing echo chamber has told the followers that meeting at an airport proves some sort of guilt.  In fact it is nothing but a huge red herring that has zero meaning.

[*bfine32*]

(03-26-2019, 03:32 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Not as amusing as watching people lose their shit over a meeting at an airport.

Bill Clinton could have called Lynch anytime he wanted to without anyone knowing.  But the right wing echo chamber has told the followers that meeting at an airport proves some sort of guilt.  In fact it is nothing but a huge red herring that has zero meaning.

Hell, JJ is assigning blame (as you call "losing shit") simply because Barr was chosen as AG. That's pretty amusing too isn't it? Why not share you thoughts of "proving nothing" with him?

Never mind, Unless of course the two of you communicate in that special way that Dino and Dill do. 

[Mike M (the other one)]

(03-24-2019, 10:31 PM)Dill Wrote: ?? Obama said it was impossible that the Russians were attempting to interfere in US elections???

Impossible that they could?  I'd like to read what he said about that if you have a link. 

PS what was your view of the 10 investigations into the Benghazi attacks, 7 by the Republican-controlled House, beginning Oct. 5, 2012 and lasting until December 17, 2016, producing no indictments? (Though they did reveal a certain S of S had a private email server, thus "driving down her numbers, as Kevin McCarthy put it.)  I am asking because this investigation seems to have come in under time compared to some others, though Watergate was shorter at 14 months.  

I believe it's a misquote from Obama, where he's actually referring to hacking/rigging the outcome of the votes.

[Benton]

(03-26-2019, 01:30 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Republicans want to investigate her, now. Beyond that, no idea.

Hadn't heard that been covered up last few days.

Well, I'd say the thread was getting off topic, but looks like the gop fixed that.

[Benton]

Stay on topic and off each other please. I'd rather not have to lock the thread because then we'd have a new one where everyone referenced old posts.

[GMDino]

Graham says Barr told him it would likely take “weeks not months” to get a version of the Mueller report viewable by the public. Said they will pass through the WH to see if they want to make redactions under executive privilege.

— Kate Irby (@kateirby) March 26, 2019

[jj22]

(03-26-2019, 04:00 PM)GMDino Wrote:

Graham says Barr told him it would likely take “weeks not months” to get a version of the Mueller report viewable by the public. Said they will pass through the WH to see if they want to make redactions under executive privilege.

— Kate Irby (@kateirby) March 26, 2019

Anyone want to guess what he will redact?!

[BmorePat87]

(03-26-2019, 04:10 PM)jj22 Wrote: Anyone want to guess what he will redact?!

I'm going to say any of the arguments Mueller makes in favor of obstruction. 

For what is suppose to be good news, the GOP is going through lengths to prevent anyone from seeing this. 

[Bengalzona]

https://news.yahoo.com/trump-investigation-fbi-reveal-findings-095934124.html?ncid=facebook_yahoonewsf_akfmevaatca&fbclid=IwAR3WVoI0k-jQflIllso2m5XJ8NkIPwW7XxOzcj__KYCkOwHwJ_6t64M5YWU

Quote:Trump investigation: FBI to reveal findings of Mueller's counterintelligence probe to House and Senate

Quote:The FBI is reportedly set to brief Senate and House leaders on the counterintelligence findings of Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation.

The agency is ready to share the special counsel’s conclusions on whether Donald Trump or his associates were compromised or influenced by the Kremlin in a private meeting with the so-called Gang of Eight, according to NBC News.

The Gang of Eight comprises the Democrat and Republican leaders of the Senate and House, as well as the chairs and ranking members of the respective intelligence committees.

Attorney general William Barr told congress on Sunday that Mr Mueller’s probe had not established collusion or conspiracy between Mr Trump’s election campaign and the Russian government, which sought to influence the 2016 presidential vote.

But Mr Barr did not touch upon the special counsel’s counterintelligence findings, and Republicans subsequently blocked an attempt by Democrats to force the release of the full report.

The FBI originally launched the investigation into Russian election interference and links between Trump associates and Moscow in 2016. Mr Mueller took over the inquiry the next year after the president fired FBI director James Comey, prompting calls for an independent probe.

Two senior US officials said the intelligence agency was prepared to brief the Gang of Eight on the special counsel’s findings, according to NBC News.

No briefing has been scheduled, but one of the officials – who were not named – said it could happen within the next 30 to 60 days.

Nancy Pelosi, the Democrat speaker of the House of Representatives, has indicated she would reject a classified briefing on Mr Mueller’s findings, warning it could shield the report’s conclusions from public scrutiny.

But the Republican-majority Senate Intelligence Committee is reported to want a private briefing.

Congressional Democrats on Monday wrote to Mr Barr demanding Mr Mueller’s report is published “in complete and unredacted form,” along with all underlying evidence, by 2 April.

“It is vital for national security purposes that Congress be able to evaluate the full body of facts and evidence collected and evaluated by the Special Counsel, including all information gathered of a counterintelligence nature,” they said.

The letter added that congress “must be permitted to make an independent assessment of the evidence regarding obstruction of justice”.

Mr Mueller did not draw a conclusion about whether Mr Trump had obstructed justice, instead setting out evidence “on both sides of the question”, according to the attorney general.

The special counsel’s report stated that although his report “does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him”.

[jj22]

Blocked again!

https://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/436006-mcconnell-blocks-resolution-calling-for-release-of-mueller-report#.XJuZ6UR9pLo.twitter

I think it's clear the Administration is lying about the report, and this attempted cover up is significant to the grand scheme of things. This isn't working out the way Trump supporters had hoped with the full blown attempt to block Trumps "exoneration" from the world (as if we believe Republicans would block it if it fully exonerated Trump as he claims). This is looking worse and worse for Trump.

[Stonyhands]

(03-27-2019, 12:47 PM)jj22 Wrote: Blocked again!

https://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/436006-mcconnell-blocks-resolution-calling-for-release-of-mueller-report#.XJuZ6UR9pLo.twitter

I think it's clear the Administration is lying about the report, and this attempted cover up is significant to the grand scheme of things. This isn't working out the way Trump supporters had hoped with the full blown attempt to block Trumps "exoneration" from the world (as if we believe Republicans would block it if it fully exonerated Trump as he claims). This is looking worse and worse for Trump.

Haha...looking worse for Trump? Only to those who are still delusional enough to believe something is there. AG Barr isn’t going to flat out lie in his summary. The JD is doing absolutely nothing because there is nothing. The left is just trying to get it public so they can grab onto any little thing they can to twist and turn it into something and disseminate it in the media just to save face after two long years of false claims. Instead of just letting it go and focusing on 2020. There’s a huge fracture within the Democrat party between the old and the new and if they don’t get their shit together 2020 is going to be real bad for them. How’d smearing Trump’s character work for them in the last election?

[fredtoast]

(03-27-2019, 01:09 PM)Stonyhands Wrote: Haha...looking worse for Trump?  Only to those who are still delusional enough to believe something is there.  AG Barr isn’t going to flat out lie in his summary.  The JD is doing absolutely nothing because there is nothing.  The left is just trying to get it public so they can grab onto any little thing they can to twist and turn it into something and disseminate it in the media just to save face after two long years of false claims.  Instead of just letting it go and focusing on 2020.  There’s a huge fracture within the Democrat party between the old and the new and if they don’t get their shit together 2020 is going to be real bad for them.  How’d smearing Trump’s character work for them in the last election?

So what do republicans have to gain by not releasing it? 

[Vas Deferens]

I'd be willing to wager at some point your daddy dearest starts floating the narrative that requesting the full report is akin to an 'investigation of the investigation Dems didnt like the result of' or possibly a 'witch hunt directed at the great AG Barr'

i have to admit the ignorant POS knows how to manipulate the intellectually disadvantaged.

[Stonyhands]

(03-27-2019, 01:53 PM)fredtoast Wrote: So what do republicans have to gain by not releasing it? 

They don’t really gain anything. But they are not ignorant to the idea that the left will twist and turn things however they see fit to fit their narrative. The left knows at this point that the summary conclusion hurts them a lot. Hell, even leftist media outlets are criticizing Democrats for being sad that our US President didn’t collude with the Russians.

Releasing the report is just another way the left can carry on this circus until 2020. There’s absolutely nothing in that report that will provide enough ammo for Trump to be impeached in the House AND the Senate. The more the left carries on with this outrageous unsubstantiated circus the more ridiculous they are looking.

Personally, I hope they keep pushing. It’ll only uncover who was really behind this hoax at the beginning. They won’t like where it goes. Just my opinion.

[fredtoast]

(03-27-2019, 02:46 PM)Stonyhands Wrote: Personally, I hope they keep pushing.  It’ll only uncover who was really behind this hoax at the beginning.  They won’t like where it goes.  Just my opinion.

There was no "hoax" from the beginning.

It began with allegations that Russians interfered with our election which Trump called "fake news". He was proven 100% wrong.

Then there were allegations of secret meeting with Russian operative which Trump and his family lied their asses off about but were proven to be true.

At that point it would have been ridiculous NOT to investigate.  The grounds for the investigation were 100% legit.

[Dill]

(03-27-2019, 02:46 PM)Stonyhands Wrote: Personally, I hope they keep pushing.  It’ll only uncover who was really behind this hoax at the beginning.  They won’t like where it goes.  Just my opinion.

Hey Stony,  some questions:

Do you think that our intel services should monitor communications of foreign diplomats and agents and suspected or known spies--especially when they are in the U.S. and especially when they represent adversary nations striving to interfere with our elections?

If the answer is "no," I'm curious as to why you think they should not not be protecting the U.S. that way.

If the answer is "yes," then another question:

Do you think the monitoring should end if some of those agents are communicating with members of a presidential campaign? 

If the answer is "yes--the monitoring should end then," then, again, I am curious as to your reasoning. 

If the answer is "no--the monitoring should continue," then I am curious as to whether you believe that members of the Trump campaign were in actually contact with Russian agents during the campaign, as reported in the MSM.  E.g., did Junior T and T's campaign manager meet with Russians dangling dirt on Hillary? Did T's campaign manager pass a Russian agent in-house polling data?  Or was this just "fake news"?

If your answer is "no--those contacts did not occur: fake news," then . . . I hardly know what to say or ask.

If the answer is "yes--those contacts did occur," then do you believe our intel services had a legal obligation to monitor such communications? 

If your answer to that is "yes," then could you maybe spell out your objections to the Special Counsel's investigation? Did they cross a line, and if so, which and where?

If there was a "hoax," then in what did it consist? Where did it begin? On whose orders?

[Dill]

(03-27-2019, 02:46 PM)Stonyhands Wrote: They don’t really gain anything.  But they are not ignorant to the idea that the left will twist and turn things however they see fit to fit their narrative.  The left knows at this point that the summary conclusion hurts them a lot.  Hell, even leftist media outlets are criticizing Democrats for being sad that our US President didn’t collude with the Russians. 

Releasing the report is just another way the left can carry on this circus until 2020. There’s absolutely nothing in that report that will provide enough ammo for Trump to be impeached in the House AND the Senate. The more the left carries on with this outrageous unsubstantiated circus the more ridiculous they are looking.

Guess we are assuming here that Trump and Barr don't twist and turn things however they see fit to fit their narrative.  Certainly Trump would not do that. Guy is a straight shooter so we should trust his version.

But are we also assuming that we should waive transparency with regards to a taxpayer-funded report on a national security issue if we think "the left will twist it"?

[fredtoast]

(03-27-2019, 02:46 PM)Stonyhands Wrote: Releasing the report is just another way the left can carry on this circus until 2020.  There’s absolutely nothing in that report that will provide enough ammo for Trump to be impeached in the House AND the Senate.

This is the most insane logic I have ever heard.

There is nothing in the report that is bad about Trump so Republicans want to hide it.

And If the Republicans just say "trust us it is not in there" Democrats will just believe them and forget all about it.

So I guess if the report actually was full of bad stuff about Trump the Republicans would be eager to release it? 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-27-2019, 01:53 PM)fredtoast Wrote: So what do republicans have to gain by not releasing it? 

Well, if I'm McConnell, who's shown himself to be a pretty savvy political operative, I hold it back so the Dems can get into a froth and go on every news channel claiming the report must have damaging evidence.  Let Maxine Waters and the other extreme members go on tirades and make wild accusations.  The release it, it has nothing in it and the Dems look stupid all over again.  Constantly discredit them as they're easily manipulated on this issue.

[jj22]

(03-27-2019, 01:09 PM)Stonyhands Wrote: Haha...looking worse for Trump?  Only to those who are still delusional enough to believe something is there.  AG Barr isn’t going to flat out lie in his summary.  The JD is doing absolutely nothing because there is nothing.  The left is just trying to get it public so they can grab onto any little thing they can to twist and turn it into something and disseminate it in the media just to save face after two long years of false claims.  Instead of just letting it go and focusing on 2020.  There’s a huge fracture within the Democrat party between the old and the new and if they don’t get their shit together 2020 is going to be real bad for them.  How’d smearing Trump’s character work for them in the last election?

Imagine if the Starr Report had been provided only to President Clinton's Attorney General, Janet Reno, who then read it privately and published a 4-page letter based on her private reading stating her conclusion that President Clinton committed no crimes.

Also, imagine if Janet Reno said she was going to give Bill Clinton the opportunity to review for anything he'd like to claim executive privilege on and redact, prior to releasing the report

You are being played for a fool, but not many people as this week goes on. No one here but you think if the report exonerated Trump it would still be hidden. No one. That's just not how this thing works. It's actually a new low for Trump supporters to try to sell Americans that they and Republicans want to hide Trumps "exoneration" from the world. As they celebrate his supposed "exoneration".

If Trump was fully exonerated as he claims, the report would have been released Saturday morning. Very few people disagree.

As a Trump supporter you should demand it be released to show he's exonerated. Interesting enough (not really), they want it hidden too. Not the actions of a group of people wanting to prove innocents.